S E M AN T I K A E N G LE S K O G A J E Z I K A

m e n t a l i s m implies that phenomena within language have a mental basis, which means
that language is not seen exclusively as an abstract system existing on its own
a n t i m e n t a l i s m implies that language is seen as a structure which is in no way related
to any kind of psychological attributes of the human being
t h e o r i e s have an explanatory function; they systemise the data according to the general
principles; on the basis of this systematisation things become clearer
m e t h o d o l o g y is a set of methods by means of which the postulates of the theory are,
hopefully, proven
l i n g u i s t i c c o n t e x t: immediate syntagmatic environment in which a linguistic
element can appear (+ non-linguistic context + context of situation)

l i n g u i s t i c s: the scientific study of language (language is seen as an abstract system)

1916, Saussures Course on General Linguistics = the beginning of linguistics as a science,
and the beginning of structural linguistics
it is the scientific study of language which aims at explaining how language functions
language is seen as a unique system/structure whose basic principles are identified, explained
and can then be applied to all languages
he distinguished between synchronic and diachronic research
he distinguished between langue, parole and langage (the totality of the linguistic
phenomena)
he started distinguishing between the psychological and sociological reality of language
linguistic sign is comprised of form and content (signifi and signifiant)
paradigmatic and syntagmatic relations
o syntagmatic linear; they are combinatory sequences determined by the two sets of
rules: those that determine how sequence can appear, and those that are deliminated by
possible choices
o paradigmatic all the possibilities within language that can be interchanged on the
syntagmatic level
o they pose a unity, i.e. function in unison
structuralism developed in two major mainstreams
o European
o American
based on the psychological theory of behaviourism
very radical kind of anti-mentalism
basic levels of linguistic analysis from the traditional point of view (i.e. what linguistics deals
with):
semantics

o phonology
o morphology
o syntax
o lexicology
o semantics (studies the structure above individual words/phrases)
impact on other humanities: they could function as a legitimate scientific disciplines

1
 s e m i o t i c s: the scientific study of signs
Ogden and Richards:
o semioticians intrigued by meaning in natural languages
o The Meaning of Meaning (1923): came up with 22 definitions of meaning
o something radical should be done, through analytical rigour meaning must have
some kind of structure; they say that analytical rigour is the only way out within any
linguistic discipline that deals with meaning
o knowledge of the language and of the world depends on a cultural background and on
the direction of the development of a language
eng.: trot > canter > gallop = hrv.: kas > ? > galop => lexical gap
galop je posuenica iz engleskog jer to nije bila primarna uloga konja u
Hrvatskoj
o triangle
symbol is any item of language REFERENC
reference (thought) is a mental vision that E
we get when someone says something
referent is a real word entity
meaning can be seen as a process; it is not
an entity SYMBOL
there is an arbitrary relation between a
symbol and a referent REFERENT
Ullmann NAME
SEN THING
SE Pierce
knowledge LEXICAL CONCEPT
knowledge
of
of
language LEXEME
the world DENOTATUM

the basic f u n c t i o n s o f l a n g u a g e (Leech)
o informational
based on the assumption that the primary reason is to convey information
connected with conceptual meaning
o expressive
use of language for expressing ones attitudes and feelings
connected with affective meaning
o directive
we aim to influence the behaviour and attitudes of others (e.g. demands and
requests)
speech acts: we act through speech and get people to do something; legal acts
(I baptise you...; I pronounce you...; etc.); for demands using questions
o aesthetic
covers various uses of language found in poetry, fiction and various aesthetic
uses

2
 use for the sake of the linguistic artefact itself
o phatic (Malinowski)
social relations with people kept on a good level keeps their communication
lines
an intricate system which provides all the social information, so we can coexist
with other people
today put alongside the informational function: they cover the majority of our
verbal exchanges
language has strong social and cultural underline; it is our most powerful tool
(we learn the rules as we grow up)



s e m a n t i c s: the scientific study of meaning (a clear definition of meaning does not exist)
formal semantics: a group of theoretical assumptions of meaning based on formal logic and
mathematics
functional semantics: a non-formal linguistic approach to meaning
syntactic semantics: when we put a word in a sentence, we get a change of meaning
Reising
o in 1839 wrote a very comprehensive book on Latin verbs
o said that dealing with verbs was impossible without incorporating meaning
o was first to make generalised statements regarding syntax and semantics of Latin verbs
M. Bral
o stresses the need for a separate discipline dealing with meaning, and he calls it for the
first time semantics
o in 1897 he writes his famous Essay on Semantics: official beginning of semantics as
a linguistic discipline
o semantics should be seen as the integral part of any linguistic study; without it,
descriptions are unproductive and do not serve to understand how language functions
the related disciplines of semantics (from the traditional point of view):
o philology
a diachronical approach to languages, a descriptive way of viewing languages
until the beginning of the 20th century
its aim is to describe different notions in a vast number of mainly Indo-
European languages
philology > etymology + syntax (seen as a descriptive discipline)
o etymology
part of philology; predecessor of contemporary semantics
deals with how words change in form and meaning over time
primarily a diachronic discipline
e.g. brijati: change in form (brijati se > brijati) and meaning (brijati = brijati
bradu > brijati = misliti, i sl.)
o lexicology
analysis of the lexemes of a language (i.e. the meaning of one phonological
sequence) and of certain set phrases
o lexicography
scientific dissection of all the types of knowledge that we need to have in order
to produce a dictionary

3
 dictionaries: monolingual, bilingual, encyclopaedic (more scientific
information, extra information, pictures, etc; e.g. Websters), thesaurus (conceptual
dictionary; the basis of the organisation are the clusters of concepts)
a good dictionary has two functions: to unveil anything one does not know, and
to unveil a new meaning one does not know yet
linguistic corpora
provide objective data for analysing linguistic phenomena
1st corpus: Brown Corpus (1960s), 1 million items amassed from 18
different kinds of texts
The National British Corpus: the biggest, more than 100 million items
The Bank of English: 200 million items
concordance: a list of examples that are represented in context
o stylistics
text/discourse analysis in written and spoken language, applying to any kind of
text, whereas traditional definition related it specifically to literature
dealing with varieties of style
the oldest, traditional notions of semantics
o they more or less successfully describe some kind of phenomena, but do not explain
how these phenomena (i.e. their semantic side, their meaning) actually function in
language, nor where they come from
o synonymy
absolute
completely same meaning
rare or even non-existent due to limited combinatory possibilities (of
phonemes in words)
John Lyons: three criteria have to be satisfied by absolute synonymy
1) synonyms are fully synonymous if all their meanings are identical
2) synonyms are totally synonymous if and only if they are synonymous an all
contexts
3) synonyms are completely synonymous if and only if they are identical in all
relevant dimensions of meaning
his examples:
radio = wireless (still used in Australian English: has a dialectal/stylistic
meaning);
airport (today: with accompanying facilities, standard civil place for air traffic)
= airfield (today: for military purposes, or merely a strip of land) = aerodrome
(today: found in technical manuals) > differences in the dimension of meaning
Croatian examples: apoteka = ljekarna; muzika = glazba, sustav = sistem...
partial
large & big: distinguished by the collocational range
flaw (personal) & defect (mechanical) & blemish (skin complex):
collocational range, and context (experience)
huge & enormous & gigantic & colossal: difference in expressive
meaning
o polysemy
one word has several related meanings
e.g. neck (of a person, of a bottle, of a shirt...), bat (animal, baseball bat)
synchronic resemblance we as speakers recognise it, feel it instinctively
these native-speaker feelings are based on metaphorical extensions (popular
etymology)

4
 conceptual background of polysemy
o homonymy
one word has more than one unrelated meaning
absolute homonyms
e.g. bank = financial institution / side of a river
criteria to be fulfilled
1) their forms must be unrelated in meaning
2) all their forms must be identical
3) identical forms must be syntactically equivalent
if the above criteria are not met, then we talk about partial homonyms
e.g. They found hospitals and charitable institutions. (found = p.t. of
to find / inf. to found) = partial homonymy often gives rise to ambiguity
e.g. The bell was rung at midnight. / A rung in the ladder was broken.
(verb / noun)
o three groups of the theories of semantics
structuralistic approach: lexemes learnt on the basis of their relationship to others
cognitive approach: lexical concepts behind words learnt
meaning explained with the help of other sciences (denotatum)


m e a n i n g is all-prevailing; ...meaning will escape any cage you put it in... (J. Samson)
meaning is totally out of structures, and structures are totally devoid of meaning (Bloomfield,
Language, 1933)
words have meanings, but one cannot scientifically define them without other sciences
interfering (e.g. salt = NaCl)
different types of meaning:
o conceptual
the central factor in linguistic communication
enables us to use and understand a certain word
it changes through time its not fixed, it is dynamic
an open-ended list of possible features
o secondary
stylistic
what is communicative of the social circumstances of the language used
depends on the text (= decoding a text)
languages provide us words which are themselves stylistically marked
affective
what is communicative of the feelings/attitude of the speaker/writer
related to stylistic meaning
e.g. Youre a vicious tyrant, and I hate you for it. = depending on
intonation, it can have different meanings
reflected
what is communicated through association with another sense of the
same expression
e.g. taboo words (an intercourse = a dialogue,...; an erection = a
building,...; etc.): one of the senses/meanings becomes prominent
e.g. euphemism (a comfort station = a toilet,...; physically challenged =
retarded,...; African-American = black; etc.)
collocative

5
 what is communicated through an association with words that tend to
occur in the environment of another word
the typical instance of how an adjective and noun are used (pretty
woman; handsome man)
can be found between a subject and its verbs (e.g. cow wandered, not
strolled across the field)
these differences in meanings can be found in the contrastive analysis of a language (which
decodes the text for stylistic meaning)
Noam Chomsky emphasised the importance of the native speaker and took the meaning back
to the focal point of cognitive sciences: ...because the language doesnt exist as an abstract
structure, but it is an integral part of our brain; every single speaker of every single natural
language can make accurate judgements whether the statement is acceptable or not, and
whether meaning in any sentence is presented as acceptable to other speakers of that
language...








c o m p o n e n t i a l a n a l y s i s
o approach to the analysis of the meaning of lexemes by breaking down the meaning into
components; meaning is a structure we try to analyse
o very strict attempt of analytical rigour
o began within the realm of European structuralism (1930s)
o these definitions are inadequate in traditional sense
o componential analysis is very alive today, but has changed drastically it started off as
a theory, and then between 1930s and 1960s still remained in linguistics, but as a
methodology, not theory
o a semantic field: set of lexemes on the paradigmatic level that are grouped together on
the basis of similar meaning
o e.g. 1.
m + ADULT
an gi + HUMAN - ADULT
w rl - ADULT
oman + HUMAN + MALE
b + HUMAN - MALE
oy + ADULT + MALE
+ HUMAN - MALE

6
o e.g. 2. (Pottier, 1964)

S1: with a back; S2: raised above the ground; S3: for one person; S4: to sit in/on; S5:
with arms; S6: with/made out of solid material
introduces descriptive components, more precision, but the choice of components is
still arbitrary
o e.g. 3 (E. Nida) see the handouts
loosens the approach to componential analysis, retaining groups (e.g. verbs of
movement)
alongside binary oppositions introduces numerals and descriptive terms
o e.g. 4 (Anna Wierzbicka) see the handout
gets a detailed contrastive analysis
a series of descriptive components, each showing that all features are inter-
related its a network, a mental picture (common to all people), not a list
her aim is to produce a definition of meaning that would describe the most fully
the concepts of mental images
o the selection of the components is optional analysts decide upon them by themselves
o if one wants a true meaning, the componential definitions must be very detailed
o the components are optional, but there is a problem of defining components
o therefore, componential analysis should only be performed with kinship terms
o componential analysis works only if it reflects close semantic relatedness









o different words may have related meanings basic relations between related words
(basis for understanding vocabulary meaning what happens on the paradigmatic level)
inclusion
 in many instances the meaning of one word may be set to be included
within the meaning of another
e.g.
animal colour
dog red
poodle scarlet

overlapping
the meanings are not identical, but they do overlap
they can be substituted on for the other in at least certain contexts,
without significant changes in the conceptual context of the utterance
more general term can usually be substituted for another, but not other
way around
e.g. big-large dog




complementation
meanings complementary to each other involve a number of shaped
features of meaning, but show marked contrasts and often opposite meanings
e.g. big-small, high-low, buy-sell, now-then, here-there,...




contiguity
these relations can be found between closely related meanings
occupying a well-defined restrictive semantic domain in exhibiting certain well-
marked contrasts
e.g. colours and verbs are a restricted semantic domain and hard to
describe semantically


















o theory of semantic fields
when the meaning of a word is viewed, it is easier to take notions close to its
meaning, i.e. semantically related lexemes
Jost Trier sees the organisation on the paradigmatic level as fields
the meaning of a lexeme is determined by the other lexemes in the lexical field
a set of lexemes on the paradigmatic level are grouped together on the basis of
similar meaning
e.g.
strike
bo

steam simme punch slap

cook
br
boil fry oil

simm deep b

a change in reality changes the concepts, causes a change in lexical inventory,
and a change in semantic field
cultural gap
strina, ujna, teta = aunt
systemic gap

non- human anima

cups can corpse carcas

dresse may

trouse must

chaos
o dichotomisation
a set of semantically related lexemes is necessary to make binary oppositions
these lexemes need to be a reflection of paradigmatic level of language
binary oppositions
gradable: e.g. high-low
 non-gradable: e.g. male-female
spatial relations
directional opposites: e.g. up-down, arrive-depart; come-go (context
dependent, therefore deixis)
orthogonal relations (N, S, E, W)
The child broke the toy. paradigmatic level

syntagmatic level













t a x o n o m y
o describing the structure of a larger set of lexemes
o borrowed from biology
o rarely more than 5 levels
o hyponymy
the basis of taxonomic organisation
the notion of inclusion = one lexeme is superordinate to a subordinate one =
hierarchical relationship
superordinate is more general, subordinate is more specific
a kind of or a type of relationship
e.g. dog (hyperonym)

Dalmatian (hyponym) Lab (hyponym) Poodle (hyponym)

co-hyponyms
e.g. creature

animal bird fish insect

dog elephant robin eagle cod trout ant butterfly

a part for the whole relationship
e.g. body

head neck trunk limbs

arm leg

palm finger foot toe
o taxonomies function up to a certain level they are limited and cannot be applied to all
words
o generic terms:
more neutral, neither too general, nor too specific
the middle one is usually the most important for our everyday communication:
the generic level (e.g. plant > bush > rose > hybrid tea > Peace)
they can also cover two sexes in the same context (e.g. man-woman, dog-bitch,
cow-bull, duck-drake)














m e t o n y m y
o works by contiguity rather than similarity
o arises between words which are already related to each other
o has a referential function: one entity is used to refer to another
o it is not arbitrary nor random
o always focuses on the most dominant (expressive) feature
o to fish pearls = metonymy / to fish for information = metaphor
o Im reading Kafka., The White House said..., Ive got a new set of wheels., We
need some new blood in our organisation., The ham sandwich left without paying.,
The Times hasnt arrived at the press conference yet.
o producer for product relationship: Ill have a Heineken., He bought a BMW....
o place for institution relationship: Paris is introducing long skirts this season.,
Wall Street is in panic.
o names for discoveries = names of inventors: Ampere, Ohm, Volt...
o one-time metonymy occur once and never again: The ham sandwich is waiting for
you to check., The Times hasnt arrived at the press conference yet.

p h r a s a l l e x e m e s
o very strict order of their constituent elements, e.g. to put up with someone
o unpredictable on the basis of their syntactic and semantic constituents
o syntactically they function as a compact
o if the nature of the subject is changed, the meaning of what follows is automatically
changed: e.g. to go out (= I have to go out) > cigarette went out (= no fire)

 i d i o m s
o function as a whole (less syntactically flexible than phrasal lexemes)
o some are completely non-transparent, some have a degree of transparency
o to kick the bucket, to cook someones goose, to have a bee in ones bonnet, to go around
the bend, to spill the beans, to pull someones leg, to be in the know...






















m e t a p h o r
o metaphoric expressions = condense comparison; works on the principle of similarity
o fulfils the need for the economy of language no need to invent new terms
o A = B; A: tenor, B: vehicle (Ullmann) their relationship is based on the similarity of
senses, which can be objective (physically recognisable) or emotive (e.g. bitter
disappointment)
o traditional view
the basic tendency in metaphor is to translate abstract entities or expressions
into concrete terms, e.g. to throw light upon sb, to be in the limelight, to put sth in
favourable light...
dead metaphors: metaphors in everyday language that we do not even
recognise, the meaning is not transparent at all
the only live metaphors are found in literature, especially in poetry
o cognitive view
Labov says that the most lively part of language are dead metaphors that we do
not notice owing to their frequent use and them becoming conventional metaphors, but
that they are still highly productive
human thought processes are largely metaphoric we understand one thing in
terms of another, organising our knowledge by associations on the basis of differences
and similarities
basic conceptual metaphors
 metaphors are not arbitrary nor random, but are systematically organised
in classes and also culturally specific
they are the systems of metaphors according to which specific linguistic
terms are formed
they do not have to be linguistically expressed, but the structure of
metaphor is the same: A = B
love is war: he won her hand in marriage, he made an ally of her
mother, she pursued him relentlessly, he fled from her advances, she fought for
him...
love is magic: she had me hypnotised, she cast a spell over me...
love is madness: Im crazy about you...
people are plants: shes in the full flower of youth, shes a late bloomer,
thats a budding theory, fertile imagination, to plant the seeds of sth...
time is money: youre wasting my time, the flat cost me an hour... (not in
E cultures)
anthropomorphic expressions: transfer of body parts to inanimate objects, e.g.
hands of a clock, foot of a mountain, neck of a bottle...


s e m a n t i c s a n d g r a m m a r
o sentence is a product of what we usually call lexical and grammatical meaning, that is,
the meaning of the constituent lexemes and grammatical structures that relate one lexeme
syntagmatically to another
o e.g. The dog bit the postman. / The postman bit the dog.
the change happened in the grammatical meaning
the meaning of the lexemes is derived from their position on the syntagmatic
level (word order)
it does not suffice to know lexical meanings of constituent lexemes
the key of understanding the meaning: the subjects and objects have
grammatical meaning


o word order
provides additional information for understanding any sentence or utterance
makes conceptual meaning more precise
it is multifunctional; there is a nucleus of grammatical meaning
Will you come? & Come, will you? (more harsh and severe; emphasis on the
predicate; used if angry)
o social meaning
in certain grammatical elements in different languages grammar carries some
kind of social meaning
e.g. social meaning expressed through vi and ti pronouns
this shows that grammatical categories can carry social meaning: pronouns of
power and solidarity
in English this is compensated by other means: titles Mr, Sir, Lady, royal 1 st
person (we instead of I)...
o full and functional words
the distinction goes back to Aristotle
full words: nouns, verbs, adjectives, adverbs; very numerous
 functional words: articles, prepositions, conjuncts, negative particles; depend
on the sets restricted by semantic rules; not semantically empty, as they can alter the
meaning (e.g. in three days / for three days)
in Croatian, estice cannot be classified in either of the two above because they
are multifunctional
o utterances and sentences
utterance
technical term
utterance meaning: belongs to spoken language; has an extra-linguistic
entity context, and is very context-dependent
sentence: in written communication
sentence meaning: belongs to written language; the context is provided
with more linguistic explanations, more text, more paragraphs...
sentence, as an entity, is not simply something that we communicate
with, something that belongs to la parole (the concrete manifestation of language)
it also belongs to la langue (the abstract manifestation of language)
sentences have to have all elements they have to connect both of the
above
we speak more than we write
it is easier to deal with grammar in full sentences utterances are often
incomplete, whereas sentences are usually complete
utterance and sentence meanings reflect the knowledge of structures
whatever one touches in grammar, one is always dealing with meaning in some
form
they dont function if they have form, but not context
o deixis
generally universal, but language-specific
a single language has a set of symbolic structures for connecting utterances (and
sentences different rules apply here) to the context of a situation
time, space, personal deictics (time and space are always interrelated in Indo-
European languages because we generally express time through social expressions)
the way speakers perceive space is probably one of the most important facets of
a language
in Croatian: ovdje (speaker) tu (hearer) ondje; directional: ovamotamo
onamo
in urban areas the perception of space changes (due to closed spaces)

o syntax
can be viewed as a set of rules that explain the linear ordering of the
syntagmatic level of language
Lyons: the syntax of a language is a set of rules that account for the distribution
of word-forms throughout the sentences of a language, in terms of permissible
combinations of classes of word-forms
the above approach ignores the matters of meaning (e.g. The postman bit
the dog. / Milk gets rotten.)
the syntagmatic level is a combination of syntactic rules and in this way
formed sentences native speakers are able to interpret and understand (e.g. John
rang me up. / *John rang up me.)
deviant sentences (*): semantically incorrect sentences, those that native
speakers do not find correct
 prototypical sentences: semantically correct; more-or-less-prototypical-
principle
prototypical syntactic environment
if there is a verb of motion (e.g. walk), the prototypical structure
is S+V(+Prep): The man walked down the street.
if one changes S, metamorphosation occurs: The ghost walked
around the house.
pseudo-object: The children walked the village streets.
a less frequent usage = a less prototypical environment
the relationship between syntactic elements (subject and object)
changes the basic meaning of the verb: change in syntax = change in the verb
meaning is seen as the backbone of word-classes and intricate
mechanisms found on the syntagmatic level
verbo-centric theories
L. Tesnier (1959) Elements of Structural Syntax: t h e v a l e n c y t h
e o r y (the verb is the focal point in the analysis, and it dictates what can come
before and after it)
C. Filmore The Case for Case (1968)
aiming for mechanisms that will explain the difference between
e.g. trudge/lumber
the verb, in its semantic aspect, is the key for the rest of the
sentence
although syntax is still his focal point, he tries to explain what
actually happens in the deep structure: in it there are covert categories, d e e p c
a s e s, which determine the relation of sentential elements that appear on the
surface structure
the problem of deep cases is that one does not know how many
of them are there
they are descriptive relations (experiencer, instrumental,
receiver...)
subjects are not merely the agents, but can be in other deep cases
as well
o all major semantic and basic syntactic processes happen in the deep structure
o collocative meaning
collocations (Lyons): grammatically connected combinations of lexemes
(semantically connected as well, but this connection is not always transparent); usually
Adj + N
a bay horse, but a blond boy = yellow hair
sour milk, but rotten meat = bad
functioning of deep syntagmatic relationships




- NE BUDE U TESTU -
c o g n i t i v e s e m a n t i c s
o 1923: Language, Edward Sapir linguistic phenomena cant be explained without
social and psychological phenomena
o 1933: Language, Leonard Bloomfield anti-psychological view of language; dealing
with phonology and morphology
o 1957: Syntactic features, Noam Chomsky: revolutionises linguistics a switch from
morphology and phonetic to syntax; introduces the notions of surface and deep structure in
syntax
o 1965: The Aspects of the Theory of Syntax, Noam Chomsky all semantic procedures
happen in the deep structure; on the basis of rules from the deep structure, we get the
surface structure where we get well formed sentences (he never explained these processes)
o transformational grammar
attempts to deal with the matters of meaning with generative framework
produced syntactically wonderful sentences, but semantics did not function =
inability to deal with meaning in syntagmatic level it falls
later: realisation that meaning is anthropomorphic, not only linguistic
phenomena
takes into consideration the psychological reality and pays attention to cultural
framework (and the environment)
o categories are difficult to define in terms of necessary insufficient features
o classicist approach: all members of a category are considered equal
o traditional approach: in a category, there is the most typical example of the whole
category
o prototype: the central member of a category, an ideal example of a category, a focal
point around which all other members are organised, determined by the environment,
culture, etc. (e.g. the Eskimos and the snow)
e.g.: eagle, chicken, robin, penguin
2. 3. 1. 4.
the most typical example of the category of
birds
o the categorisation of colours:
depends on a culture, on a language
all the labels are based on typical colours
focal colours: no in-between colours, just the main ones; they are
salient/significant
Dani tribe in Papua-New Guinea knew only two terms for colours, those for
warm and cold colours; Eleanor Rosch taught the, the focal colours
black, white > red > green, yellow > blue > brown > purple, pink, orange, grey
o lexeme is viewed as a category where one member is a prototype and the others are
arranged around it, e.g. mouse (animal + object), root (plant + of a problem + in Maths)
o prototypical word order in English: S-V-O
o prototypes are required for everyday communication because they represent the shared
knowledge we have
o minimum concepts: sufficient for everyday communication prototypical knowledge
of a concept (e.g. potato: no need to know its anatomy)
o maximum concepts: all other things (e.g. the flower of a potato, its Latin name, etc.)
o classification of all other notions according to the centre, core prototype
o scenes: systems of concepts that structure and form various aspects of human
experience; our knowledge of the world is organised in scenes (not a list of information);
prototypical images we have in our head, not only about things and entities, but about
events as well
o frames: the linguistics means that are available to refer to the aspects of the scene;
lexical set whose members index portions or aspects of some conceptual whole; words
interrelate so that they activate one another, forming correct sentences